waterpanther: And the federal Constitution trumps state laws and state constitutions. If Congress can't do it, neither can a state lege.

Can make no "law" is the key word in that amendment.

A resolution is not a law but rather stating what you would like to see in your own little world. It has no more legal authority than if I declared that I'd love to see a near aircraft carrier. The Constitution also give directions on how to impeach a president in the proper legal manner. That doesn't stop the San Francisco Council from passing resolutions that Bush should be impeached or other innumerable things that are beyond their realm of authority. The board in SF has passed so many ludicrous resolutions beyond their authority that if such a stretch was illegal they'd all be in jail.

The SF Supervisors like to pass resolutions just so nobody is in any doubt about what they think.

This resolution, stating that only Christianity has "justified recognition," is like a slap in the face to non-Christians. They might as well say that only those who have Jesus as their personal Savior need apply.

Edited by Rhea, 07 March 2006 - 01:02 PM.

The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH

Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen. - RAH

That's a might bit unfair, it seems. Naming it the 'majority religion' isn't as such a bad thing, if statistics say that it is, but making it the only religion with protection, etc, that's different. Everyone deserves protection, and shouldn't be discriminated against because they're different to the majority.

let's say this was more than a resolution, the assembly was going for a law. Now, the US constitution has that thing, Congress shall make no law regarding one church over any other ............................ but that's the US federal system: what about the state constitutions? they all have one ................ and frankly the Massachussetts constitution written by John Adams before the USA, became the model for the US, he's the one as a lawyer besides a farmer so he understood the importance of these things and divining the future too, who put that separation of branches of power in there in Boston which made it to the Philadelphia convention and we needed that ...........

I didn't see in there anything about 'states shall make no law ...'
so, what if a state didn't have in their constitution, or changed it if they had, a thing about make no law regarding one church ............. and then made some legislation for Christianity ........ it's really about what the courts say, since that one little clause in the US one is well pretty little ..... would the courts say that its intent was 'Also' that no states can make a law regarding .... ?
and if they say such intent, how do they back that up? where do you get that intent, I didn't see it ......... maybe I'm being mute here and every single state constitution has something like that in it?

but what if then a legislature did an amendment to a state constitution?
Im just saying ......... could this happen? how far can a state really go if they so want to?

{and what's that part, besides the majority thing, about not protecting minority religions???} in that IF world, wonder what recourse any suits could bring?

/legalramblingsoff

Edited by offworlder, 07 March 2006 - 01:41 PM.

"(Do you read what they say online?) I check out all these scandalous rumours about me and Elijah Wood having beautiful sex with each other ... (are they true?) About Elijah and me being boyfriend and boyfriend? Absolutely true. We've been together for about nine years. I wooed him. No I just like a lot of stuff - I like that someone says one thing and it becomes fact. It's kind of fun." --Dominic Monaghan in a phone interview with Newsweek while buying DVDs at the store. :D

If it is true, it is sick. I'm sorry, but it is. No-one has the right to say their beliefs in matters as abstract as religion are better or more important than anyone elses (with the possible exception of those who preach violence..). I thought religion was about tolerance? Seems not.

When in the 1980s and 1990s the Berkeley City Council passed various resolutions declaring the city to be a nuclear free zone, and a sanctuary for illegal immigrants from El Salvador and for AWOL troops opposed to the first Gulf War, or enjoining its police from cooperating with Federal immigration authorities, I once wondered why the Federal government did not seek injunctions and punitive action against a body that appeared to be actively interfering with the Federal law that, in each of these matters, would trump local law under the U.S. Constitution.

Looking into this, I discovered that these votes were merely resolutions, non-binding and unenforceable against public officers or ordinary citizens who might act in a way that was contrary to these expressions of the City Council; they were not actually ordinances that would have to be recognized legally and obeyed by those subject to the local law of Berkeley. These resolutions were only an expression of the Council, exercising its right of free speech.

If the resolution in Missouri contains no provision for compelling obedience--directly or indirectly--then the Federal courts would have no basis to interfere in a simple expression of opinion, repellent as it may be, unless and until a case is made that it has or is highly likely to cause an adverse effect upon a body or individual that contravenes the rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.

I think there is a huge difference between a city ordinance and a state wide resolution. For example, I doubt very seriously that Mississipi could get away with a "resolution" stating that Mississipi supports segregation based on race.

And the federal Constitution trumps state laws and state constitutions. If Congress can't do it, neither can a state lege.

Right, it's in the 14th Amendment...

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

States cannot pass a law prohibiting that which the US Constitution guarantees. Otherwise things like slavery, a woman's right to vote, etc could be legislated at the State level.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

A city council, or a county commissioners court (or whatever that may be called in various states), can reasonably pass a resolution urging a state or federal legislature to pass a law, using the right of petition guaranteed in the Constitution, it being understood that the council or court has no power to pass such legislation itself.

A resolution passed by a body that does have the power to make laws is a whole other matter entirely. It may not be binding, but it certainly does express the sense of the lawmaking body and can be seen as a dry run for legislation to come.

Now, the fact is that such a law officially recognizing a particular religion flies in the face of the U. S. Constitution. It also is directly contradictory to Article I, Section 7 of the Missouri State Constitution. If I were a citizen of Missouri and set any store at all by separation of church and state, I'd be getting very nervous about now.

(Actually, I'm very nervous already. The Texas Republican Party platform declares that the United States is "a Christian Nation." If Missouri gets away with this, look for the Rupub lunkheads in the Texas lege to be the next ones to try it.)

I cannot recall precedent where the Supreme Court has struck down (and since only a law may be "struck down", I should probably find another term to describe an action against a resolution) non-binding expression of any legislature in the land, whether that be from Congress, a State legislature, or a local council.

Indeed, such action would smack of outright censorship, so unless the words contained in that resolution presented, as traditionally held, a "clear and present danger" to a body or individual (e.g. enciting violence or pronouncing a libel), it would seem akin to publicly burning some offensive document.

This is not to say that the courts have no power to examine the issue or grounds for possible action...any person or group that feels that a decision adversely affecting them was or will likely be made on the basis of that resolution could certainly file suit and, I suspect, discover that the courts will be more than willing to take such claim into consideration, and find against any entity that appeared to justify unconstitutional discrimination based on that resolution.

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

States cannot pass a law prohibiting that which the US Constitution guarantees. Otherwise things like slavery, a woman's right to vote, etc could be legislated at the State level.

Just to reiterate here folks, NO STATE can pass a law that abridges the privileges granted by the US Constitution. NO STATE.

One of the purposes of the 14th amendment was to guarantee Federal rights to citizens among the states. It was in essence written this way, so that the newly freed slaves could not be re-enslaved by legislation by State Legislatures. The 14th amendment granted to ALL citizens, regardless of what state the lived in, the freedoms guaranteed in the FEDERAL constitution.

Sates can legislate anything they wish, EXCEPT ones that legislate against or contrary to the rights and privileges guaranteed by the Constitution.

Any law passed that abridged these freedoms becomes a Federal Civil Rights case. You should all really take a look at the 14th amendment, it's pretty far reaching when it comes to State's Rights vs. Federal Rights

A resolution does give us the 'mood' of a legislature, but it is meaningless in terms of enforceability. If congress cannot 'establish' any religion, neither can a state within the United States. This is in fact, Black Letter Law.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

He wasn't saying that wasn't true, he was saying that a nonbinding resolution isn't a law and therefore arguements based on this being a law don't apply since of course a law saying this would be struck down immediately for being unconstitutional while a resolution has no force of law. It doesn't make the idea any more stupid or wrongheaded but there it is.

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

He wasn't saying that wasn't true, he was saying that a nonbinding resolution isn't a law and therefore arguements based on this being a law don't apply since of course a law saying this would be struck down immediately for being unconstitutional while a resolution has no force of law. It doesn't make the idea any more stupid or wrongheaded but there it is.

I wasn't sure if it was understood, as it seemed a lot of panic over something that couldn't be enforced. Thanks for clarifying it for me.

Course, there is no denying that this is a scary trend of thinking in the US.

Rules for surviving an Autocracy:

Rule#1: Believe the Autocrat.
Rule#2: Do not be taken in by small signs of normality.
Rule#3: Institutions will not save you.
Rule#4: Be outraged.
Rule#5: Don't make compromises.
Rule#6: Remember the future.

All the Constitution says about the subject is "Congress shall make no law..."

Missouri's really not extremely conservative; it's more of a split state. (They kept re-electing Gephart for a while, for example.) But it does have extreme conservatives in it.

Like I said, Saint Louis and K.C. are a lot more democratic, but over all it's a conservative state. The morals and such. I know, I've lived here all 28 years of my life. And being conservative doesn't necessarily equal religious fallout/remainceses.

Gephart was a representive of a part of Saint Louis which hadn't changed a lot for years and years. When he retired, the son of the late Governor Mel Carnahan attempted to take over in his position. He won, but barely.

Edited by FnlPrblm, 08 March 2006 - 03:16 AM.

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Beryl Coronet

The Boscombe Valley Mystery: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." --- Ralph Waldo Emerson 'Art,' 1841

I love my country, I love the constitution that created it but I agree with you Themis, this scares the ever loving sh!t out of me.

Oh well, cross yet another state off my list of places to NEVER visit.

Thank the God that these hate spewing @$$holes do NOT worship that Canada is only a tank of gas away if their sickness spreads my way..

enTranced

Um, thanks a whole lot. That's a sad attitude to take. It's your right and choice not to visit here, but it's pretty wrong to say that we're all like this. I personally take offense to your comments. But it's cool...I can live with it.

Oh and btw, Saint Louis consistently ranks amongst the top U.S. cities (usually in the top 3) in polls conducted as to the nicest people living there (here...whatever).

Finally, should I tell you (as I've said many times other places) that I've always wanted to visit Canada? :wideeyed:

(edited because I had typed something towards what a resolution was [in response to Themis' post], but after reading further I had seen that it was explained. Therefore I took it out, but I forgot to take out Themis' quote. So sorry Themis for seeming to link your comments to those enTranced made. That wasn't my intention.)

Edited by FnlPrblm, 09 March 2006 - 02:46 AM.

"It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes: The Beryl Coronet

The Boscombe Valley Mystery: "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact."

"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." --- Ralph Waldo Emerson 'Art,' 1841

Um, thanks a whole lot. That's a sad attitude to take. It's your right and choice not to visit here, but it's pretty wrong to say that we're all like this. I personally take offense to your comments. But it's cool...I can live with it.

Did you work to pass the law? If you didn't then my comments, emotional yes, but hey, this law pushes every single one of my buttons, should not be taken personaly by you.

Quote

Oh and btw, Saint Louis consistently ranks amongst the top U.S. cities (usually in the top 3) in polls conducted as to the nicest people living there (here...whatever).

Nice people can sometimes do very stupid things. This law is a very stupid thing IMHO. Stupid and downright unamerican.

Quote

Finally, should I tell you (as I've said many times other places) that I've always wanted to visit Canada? :wideeyed:

I love Canada, I have visted there and it's a pretty cool place. After reading this thread I've been thinking about it a lot.

But its not a law its a resolution. A resolution has no force and no legal standing while a law would. It is unconstitutional if it were a law but it doesn't seem to be that. A resolution has no binding force, no mechanism or expectation of enforcement built into it. So it's just stupid and irritating rather than a threat to constitutional rights.

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."